Precedents, parliaments, and foreign policy: historical analogy in the House of Commons vote on Syria

Abstract

This analysis investigates the role of historical analogies in the influence that parliaments have in foreign policy. Our empirical focus is the UK House of Parliament's unusual opposition to the Prime Minister on UK involvement in Syria in 2013. The Parliament's vote challenges many conventional expectations about the role of parliament in security affairs. Important in this vote were lessons learned and strategically used from UK participation in the intervention of Iraq in 2003. We develop this argument theoretically based on research on historical analogies, arguing that parliaments, 'learn' (primarily negative) lessons about past foreign policy events which guide parliamentary preferences and procedures and can enhance parliaments' role in subsequent foreign policy. We contribute to research on analogies by extending the logic to lessons on process. This use of precedents can offer more structurally-oriented perspectives mechanisms that translate critical junctures into reforms in procedures and policy making practices.

Challenging humanitarian intervention in the twenty-first century: British domestic actors and horizontal foreign policy contestation during the Syrian crisis

“…The cautious British attitude towards intervention is a consequence of this contestation. Along these lines, this paper corroborates recent studies about the influence of historical analogies on the parliamentary capacity to limit the decisions of executive actors on the use of force (Hoekema, 2004;Kaarbo and Kenealy, 2017). Moreover, it goes in a similar direction to those studies that recognise an independent effect of analogies on foreign policy-making (Khong, 1992).…”

“…The impact of historical analogies with previous traumatic operations should not be overstated. British governments still maintain 'considerable ability to bypass parliament…when making security policy' (Kaarbo and Kenealy, 2017). During the Syrian crisis the government generally supported the constitutional convention on the necessity to have a parliamentary vote to authorise the use of force.…”

History in the Service of Politics: Constructing Narratives of History During the European Refugee “Crisis”

“…Research on the use of historical narratives in politics is important for understanding how particular political strategies are proposed, supported, or discredited. In this way, it connects with research and theory on “political myth” (Bottici & Challand, ; Esch, ) and historical analogies (Kaarbo & Kenealy, ), showing not just how historical events provide frames for interpreting present‐day events, but also demonstrating how politicians can use historical narratives to mobilize social identities and legitimize certain political strategies. In Mumford’s () terms, it is not possible to say whether they are most relevant in relation to decision‐making, rhetoric, or both.…”

The party politics of legislative–executive relations in security and defence policy

“…deployment decision-making. Particularly in the British case, these debates have been well documented elsewhere (seeStrong 2014;Kaarbo and Kenealy 2017;Mello 2017). However, whereas most accounts treat the legislative and the executive as largely unitary actors, we pay special attention to the party-political dimension of these debates.In Spain, debates about a new deployment law began already in the wake of NATO's 1999 bombing campaign against Serbian targets in Kosovo and Serbia.…”

“…First, the British Labour party is more supportive of military missions than their counterparts in Germany, Spain and France (see CHES data in the appendix). Second, the frustration over the Iraq war (under a Labour PM) has led to cross-party support for an ex-ante parliamentary vote (see also Kaarbo and Kenealy 2017).…”